About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 5
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
FBC 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
explained she was using these unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack. and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn has also told rice tried to clarify to gop senators that what she meant was al qaeda's core leadership had been decimated. but gop senators argue rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: rice did not answer our questions. she did release a statement admitting her talking points "were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. while we certainly wish we had perfect information jus
by dr. rice. >> as i understand it, the explanation is that that was being withheld, the al-qaeda involvement was -- that point of the talking points was being withheld for classified reasons, but i also explored didn't you question that because that left, if you were to omit that portion, it leaves a very different impression to the american people and frankly, i didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. >> bill: joining us from washington to react, fox news analyst charles krauthammer. so bigger mess now than it's ever been. here is my assessment based on what happened today. i'm going to go on the record. this is what i think is going to happen and you can tell me if i'm right or wrong in your i think that the white house and the obamaeelection committee, all right, that means david axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the obama administration had decimated al-qaeda. so they ordered dr. rice, the ambassador to the u.n., to go out on the sunday shows and say that the s
they knew and reported internally that the attacks were likely terrorism and an al qaeda affiliated group could be involved. four days later rice gave no hint of that. >> we have no information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: last week former cia director general petraeus told congress someone in the obama administration removed references to terrorism and al qaeda from his agency's summary. senator john mccain, who has called for a special committee to investigate the matter has led the call to find out who made the changes and why. >> i was on "face the nation" the morning she came on and told that incredible story. and right after it the president of the libyan national assembly said it was al qaeda. we know it was al qaeda. and yet she never changed her story. >> reporter: yesterday rice also spoke to mccain's criticism of her. >> i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded, but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this wi
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
! >> stephanie: the original assessment of the benghazi attack was it was carried out by al-qaeda affiliated groups. he said that analysis was taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general review that they did not tip off terrorists to u.s. knowledge of the matter. we already covered this. general petraeus and now other intelligence officials are just -- you know, making it even clearer. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official ec
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
. at the end of the day, we're going to have to dismantle this terror state. imagine you had a small al qaeda state right next to the united states, shooting missiles at you. you can't talk to them. you have to defeat terror. after we defeat terror, i certainly would engage in long-term peace talks. but there first has to be a step of dismantling this terror state that's right next to us. >> and that doesn't sound very hopeful. i have to say, many of the smart minds we've spoken to say they believe this cease fire will hold. the big question is, will a broader peace agreement take hold? i ask you this. what is it going to take? egypt was critical, as you know, in brokering this deal. will egypt have to remain a permanent mediator as talks continue? >> well, i think egypt has an islamic regime also, but obviously they were mediators here in this case. we have to define the situation. we're not talking about a state that is looking for long-term peace. we're talking to a state that has decided deliberately to wipe us out. now, yes, i'm not always the bearer of good news. i want peace more than
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
are we surprised they'd tweak the points. and director of intelligence, whether the line on al qaeda as a threat and all of those things, segue back to this book, all of that's in here, not to scare the american people, but to bring them up to speed on what's happening in crowds like the so-called fast and serious operation to go on and coverup with executive privilege. this is a scary administration. >> can you give me 20 seconds on what qualifies as an assault weapon, which this administration would like to ban? because a lot of people they're confused and so am i, frankly, i don't know wh an assault weapon is. >> they're going to look at a weapon with api pistol grip, an more and a few rounds and a flash suppresser. even though it's like my .22 or the automatic shotgun i'm giving to one of my grandsons at christmas. i'm one of the folks who applied for one of the permits to buy a gun. what we don't want to have is a requirement to register those firearms and that's what has the got people buying so many of ttem. stuart: that's an important thing, they're require to register, is th
is as dangerous as any time that i can remember. despite claims by some, al qaeda and its affiliates remain dangerous and determined to kill americans. this reality must force us to reassess the threat to u.s. embassies and consulates around the world and provide additional resources in military end strength, that's u.s. marines, to increase protection of diplomatic personnel from those threats. this amendment will do that. it will provide the necessary end strength and resources to support an increase in marine corps security at u.s. consulates and embassies throughout the world. up to a thousand additional personnel. in particular, at locations identified by the secretary of state as in need of increased security in light of known and emerging threats to the united states personnel and property by terrorists. most americans believe that u.s. marines are stationed to protect our embassy personnel abroad, but i think they will be surprised to learn that marines are assigned in only slightly more than half of our diplomatic missions worldwide. 182 missions in 137 countries. moreover, their n
that the cia drafted those talking points. the dni, director of national intelligence removed the word al qaeda. they said it came from classic information. it's a tightly and it might influence the investigations. >> republicans will probably not be satisfied by rice's explanations. >> reporter: i would think not at this point because i don't think she really moves the ball from what we understood and that is what the administration has been saying. she was given this information by the intelligence community and that she repeated it and that there was no intention to mislead. it hasn't been accepted by the republicans yet and we'll just have to see where they go. one of the most interesting ones will be the stay department investigation perhaps in december and will really wrap things up. >> all right. after stuffing yourself with turkey today maybe you'll work it off by getting caught up in the black friday shopping frenzy which starts early this year. employees at stores like target want their holiday. more than one person is wondering why you want want to leave your family at a red tag sale
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
. anybody looking at the threats, it would jump out at you that this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity i think it is pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust, and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? my belief is, not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as pres
the al qaeda leader was buried at sea. heather: the top republican in the house wants to go after the healthcare in the fiscal negotiations. [ male announcer ] this december, remember -- you can stay in and share something... or you can get out there and actually share something. ♪ the lexus december to remember sales event is on. this is the pursuit of perfection. rick: a fox news alert as we updaten a story we have been covering the past couple hours. the massive pileup in texas. we have confirmation two people have died. probably 80-100 people injured. a lot of them taken to local hospitals. there were crews looking for people who may have still been trapped and perhaps this is how they came to learn that two people died. this is jefferson county, texas. this chain reaction accident happening on the highway there. the result of heavy fog. and we are told there are three different areas workers still on the scene as we learn more. we'll pass it along. heather: thanksgiving is a time to counts our blessings and help thoseless fortunate. but in a scramble for revenues tax change
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
't say al qaeda or iran or north korea, what he said was the debt and deficit. i think that is exactly right. above all, this is the future. we are not talking about a physical infrastructure, we are talking about our human infrastructure. joel klein is someone who has dedicated the most recent date of his multifaceted career to this. when he is in discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn, he is focused on improving the lot of young people in this country. mostly the other way around. some going to tell you about the time he has dedicated to this issue. about a year and a half ago, i called a condoleezza rice and i said i wanted to do something with me. and i said richard, don't even go there, and i said okay. and so i said before the end of this conversation, you are going to agree to what i'm going ask to ask you. and she said, no way. i said right. we spent a lot of time on all the traditional foreign-policy issues. we are focused on being domestic and what we want to do is report on education. we don't want a piece on everyone else has done. what we want to do is look at educat
that they knew that those with ties to al qaeda work involved in the attacks in the embassy, and clearly the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that information was wrong, and they knew by the 22nd that it was wrong. they have not clear that up with the american people, and coming forward in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states also talking about the fact that it was a reaction to the video. what troubles me also is that obviously the changes made, the unclassified talking points were misleading, but just to be clear, when you have a position where your and ambassador to the united nations, you go well beyond classified talking points in your daily responsibilities, and that is troubling to me as well, i am a person that got -- does not know anything about this and i am going on every single show. is part of our responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to review much more than that. >> before anybody could make an intelligent d
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)